9 ms·
I'm still confused why I would want my storage to be decentralized. No I don't want my files spread on thousands or millions of computers no matter how encrypt
by JohnJamesRambo 9y ago
I'm still confused why I would want my storage to be decentralized. No I don't want my files spread on thousands or millions of computers no matter how encrypted etc.
- RobertoG 9y agoredundancy? storage of public assets? because is fun?
- alikoneko 9y agoThis is the reason I can't take Silicon Valley too seriously. It isn't the magic algorithm, it is that no sane person would want Pied Piper's storage because it does just what you said in the context of the show.
- strgrd 9y agoThe same reason I can't take Ethereum seriously. Do people seriously trust, or want an unproven hypervisor running code remotely on their hardware/network?
- easytiger 9y agoFrom 9 hours ago: https://etherscan.io/address/0xb3764761e297d6f121e79c32a65829cd1ddb4d32 https://etherscan.io/address/0xb3764761e297d6f121e79c32a6582...
- leshow 9y agoWhat do you think Apple or Google does with your files after they are uploaded? Do you think they aren't encrypted and spread out over several machines?
- _ar7 9y agoAll those machines are owned by Google or Apple though. They're not completely random machines.
- theschwa 9y agoWhat's the problem with them being on random machines? I believe the purpose of Filecoin and other projects like Swarm is to incentives people to store the files long term and in some cases verify that those files are still being held.
- hollander 9y agoWhat I don't understand is how this will guarantee the existence of these files. How do I know my files are secure? If my files are spread over several machines, and one or several go offline, are reinstalled, whatever. How do I know my files are secure?
- lend000 9y agoThey are most likely encrypted with your public key, no?
- idle_zealot 9y agoPresumably your data is duplicated to the point that all nodes containing any particular piece of data are very unlikely to be offline at a given time.
- theschwa 9y agoI haven't had a chance to dig into this paper yet, but for a similar system Swarm [0], there is a system of insurance and escrow on file chunks, and a system of verifying the hash of piece of the file to see if they still have its contents. [0] http://swarm-gateways.net/bzz:/theswarm.eth/ http://swarm-gateways.net/bzz:/theswarm.eth/
- bjoveski 9y agoThe file is encrypted locally before uploading to the network. Then the file is sharded, and the shards are replicated among the nodes. Once a shard falls below a certain replication threshold, it will get copied to a new node. There are other schemes that don't require a copy of each shard, allowing you to reconstruct the file if any subset of the nodes is online.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- colejohnson66 9y agoBut with Apple and Google, I know my data won’t go missing because the p2p network decided to stop seeding my file. Torrents die all the time due to lack of seeding.
- theschwa 9y agoI believe that's what projects like Filecoin and Swarm are trying to solve. How do you incentivise long term storage of these files.
- tyrust 9y agoTorrent hosts do not have a monetary incentive to host files. Filecoin (and other decentralized storage systems) provide monetary rewards and penalties for storing or failing to store files. This is introduced in Section 4.1.1 of this paper.
- zippoxer 9y agoExactly. As long as there's demand to keep hosting files in the network, there WILL be providers hosting your files. Even if a hosting company who hosts 5% of the network (that's a lot) decides to exit the and stop hosting, your files are spread between enough computers and you only need about half of them to be online to recover your files.
- jondubois 9y agoUnless some parts of your data happened to be replicated across multiple shards on that same hosting company's hardware. Then you would have a partial loss of data. The bad thing is that you would not be able to hold them responsible.
- baddox 9y ago> Torrent hosts do not have a monetary incentive to host files. And on private torrent sites, where there is an incentive (usually non-monetary) to seed torrents, torrents really don't die all that often.
- 9y ago
- nyolfen 9y agowell, it sounds like this is not the application for you.
- Ajedi32 9y agoTrustless, distributed, scalable, redundant, anonymous cloud storage with a market-driven pricing scheme? Why _wouldn't_ you want that? For me that's pretty much the ideal cloud storage system.
- hudon 9y ago"distributed, scalable, redundant" describes AWS pretty well, and if I can pay much less for a faster more reliable service but sacrifice "trustless and anonymous", I'll stick to it.
- Ajedi32 9y agoWhat makes you think AWS would be necessarily be faster or more reliable? If done correctly, think a decentralized system could be significantly faster and more reliable than even the best centralized storage solution. For example, with a decentralized system files could be broken up into shards and distributed across multiple nodes, so unless a significant percentage of computers on the planet all melt down at once your data would remain accessible (i.e. zero downtime). That would also allow downloads to be parallelized across multiple connections like with BitTorrent, meaning bandwidth wouldn't be an issue either. And that's not even considering the effect that a commoditized pricing system would have on the costs of a distributed storage solution. I imagine it'd be significantly cheaper than AWS too, as storage would be sold at a price very close to costs.
- viraptor 9y agoIf the decentralised network is popular and stable and clients happen to be next to you and they happen to have parts of your files, then yes. It could be fast and reliable. On the other hand, you could spend some money and guarantee it instead: https://aws.amazon.com/directconnect/ https://aws.amazon.com/directconnect/
- hbk1966 9y agoAlso if people ever stop using the service your files could be gone forever.
- wmf 9y agoWhat if it was 1/10th the price of normal storage?
- aboodman 9y agoIf it works, it's going to drive the price of storage to near cost. So you'd use it because it will be dramatically cheaper than the alternatives.
- tenebrisalietum 9y agoYou should check out Tahoe-LAFS, but Tahoe-LAFS does RAID-style striping and parity. So you can spread bits and pieces of a file on 5 servers, and require that minimum 3 servers need to be active to retrieve your file, for example.
- sandov 9y agoNo censorship, files are not held by any specific organization, etc. Basically the same reasons why someone would prefer torrents over web hosting (e.g. megaupload).
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago> I'm still confused why I would want my storage to be decentralized. Say... if you were running a torrent site? Or you just wanted redundancy for your cat videos. The encryption doesn't bother me. The way I encrypt it ensures it won't be unencrypted without actually knowing the passcode. What bothers me is that when you finally need to access it, it might not be there.
- vbezhenar 9y ago1. Safety. One place could go burning in fire. Second place could be destroyed by some missile. It might happen simultaneously or while you're trying to retrieve the backup. So you need multiple decentralized copies to ensure safety. Also you can't just use AWS because then might ban your account and you'll lose your data. 2. Price. There are many computers with a lot of free unused storage space and unlimited internet plans. Basically storage and transfer is 0-cost for them. So they'll compete creating very affordable pricing. AWS can't compete with that, because they have real operational costs.
- sargun 9y agoStorage of illegal numbers?
- alwillis 9y agoWhy is decentralized and distributed file storage critical for a better web?—https://coincenter.org/entry/why-is-decentralized-and-distributed-file-storage-critical-for-a-better-web https://coincenter.org/entry/why-is-decentralized-and-distri...